In which the Meandering Matriarch once again climbs onto her soapbox to have a stab at understanding the Climate-Change Hoax theory.

I’m not a climatologist. I’m not a scientist at all, so I do not have the credentials to assess the scientific evidence for or against the so-called Climate Change Hoax. I do, however, have the nouse to analyze the underlying (political)issues which form the crux of the arguments put forward by the Climate Deniers, or Skeptics–as some prefer to call themselves as it sounds more thoughtful.

I’ve spent a considerable amount of time reading articles, blogs, and comments by the leaders of the conspiracy theorists. A few of them actually have scientific credentials of one cloth or another. (Presumably they aren’t getting government grants, however.) Most of the spokespersons are experts in other fields. Writers, conservative politicians, industrialists (particularly in the fossil fuel energy industry). But I wish to say up front that some of the scientific articles I reviewed were very persuasive. Up to a point. I had no way of judging whether the scientific claims being quoted were reasonable, so I could be sucked in for a while. But invariably, the presentation of the contradictory “facts” deteriorated into a rant about the conspiracy, or collusion between governments and scientists to hoodwink the public into believing the threat is real, that the globe really is warming, that the scientists are all motivated by money in the form of government grants, and that politicians are manipulating the scientists to produce findings–even to falsify findings–to suit their political agenda. Once that became the point of the article, I knew there was a credibility problem. What legitimate scientist would want, or need, to resort to that sort of ranting? Every article that descended to that level of discourse lost credibility. I subsequently found that the so-called facts being trotted out were either out of context, or just plain wrong. Virtually all of the arguments have been discredited.

Here are the basic arguments as I found them:

Argument 1:It’s all about scientists getting grant money. The scientists’ll say anything to get government grant money, and global warming is the issue du jour, according to Gary DeMar in Godfather Politics – ‘Global Warming’ Fear is About Money Not Science‘ posted online on August 26, 2012. It’s a common theme–indeed, perhaps the dominant theme in the Case for the Climate Change Hoax.

Argument 2:The Scientists are being manipulated by politicians to spin their research findings to Suit a Political Agenda. Another common theme. Virtually every writer on the topic cited this as a reason for the Hoax. Arguments 1 and 2 combined paint a sinister picture of collusion between the government politicians and scientists around the world to create this enormous (false) threat. To scare the bejeezus out of everyone, in other words.

Argument 3:The planet isn’t warming; Himalayan peaks are not melting The researchers that are cited re the lack of melting of the higher peaks also claim that the new findings do not negate existing theories on global warming. But, as my (denial) source went on to explain, “This declaration…appears to be more of a politically-charged opinion rather than a hypothesis based on the facts, as there simply is no concrete evidence that ice caps as a whole are melting any faster than usual, or that man is responsible for causing this if they are.” So we can believe the research when it says that the Himalayan ice caps aren’t melting, but we should ignore the rest of it because it is politically motivated. That makes sense. Doesn’t it?

How do I ‘know’–or at least feel so confident about which side of the argument can be discredited? Well, I simply looked at the arguments being proffered and asked a couple of basic questions of the information.

My simple approach was to first ask WHY? Why in heaven’s name would governments around the world want there to be a genuine environmental threat to the planet that would embroil them in fearsome and politically risky policy debates and negotiations. What government politician anywhere in the world wouldn’t rejoice at the news thatthere is no threat? So we are left wondering why they would favor scientists who report Doomsday findings. Yet, it is critical to the Hoax Theory that scientists are in it for the money–specifically government grant money–and the politicians are thus manipulating scientists by awarding that grant money to those who will report that there is a threat. It just doesn’t add up.

The next question, of course, is What interests are at stake in the debate? It isn’t rocket science–or even climate science–to know that most of the major players in the Hoax Theory camp are tied in some way to oil, gas, and coal interests. By my reckoning, government leaders and politicians of all sorts would love to see the issue go away, so they, too, have a vested interest in believing there is no threat. So why do we have a fight on our hands? Simply because the scientific data is so compelling. So compelling, in fact, that responsible officials cannot ignore it.

I’m not even going to try to address the question of whether there is such a thing as global warming happening. The answer to that is within the data generated by each side of the debate. Either you believe that being presented by the majority of climate scientists–the leading climate scientists– or you believe the data presented by the Hoax Theorists. MM

I refer you to an excellent analysis of Energy Journalism by David Roberts. He considers how the energy issues are typically addressed, and how they need to addressed in the context of todays changing climate and environment. Essential reading. Especially when you also read this article.

I recently started writing an article in which I played Devil’s Advocate and tried to make the case for the Climate Change Hoax. In it I referenced many of the people and articles I turned to to make the case. I will link it hear if you wish to have a look at my sources as I tried to uphold the Climate Change Deniers case.

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

I think the climate is changing, but I’m not so sure it is due entirely to the actions of humans. I think the fear of climate change is being used to prod governments into initiating efforts to be environmentally conscious. That isn’t a bad thing, and I suspect that somewhere down the line we will have a cleaner earth, but I doubt it will cause the earth to quit warming (or cooling, as I’ve read we have actually been doing since about 1997.)

Ah delightfully put Margie. I’m sure the MM will be delighted to present the evidence for being considered THE tipping point. Nevertheless I can see we might be one of many blocks in the tipping point pyramid.

I would be delighted if I knew what it might be. But I only said “we might be the tipping point”–I didn’t suggest we are THE tipping point. Trouble with “waiting until all the facts are in” is that there really is no point when that will happen, or any way to know what “all the facts” are. It’s a moving target. And regardless of the scope of the influence that we humans may have on climate change, it is undeniable that we are having a negative impact on the global environment, even if not the climate. I would be interested to know what facts you would consider adequate to make the case?

i’ll try reading that again then where you said that “we might be the tipping point”.On re reading I still read it as ” we might be the tipping point” i drafted and answer, but fear that this will prolong the agony, so in our[my] best interests I will desist, accepting with grace, that I am a denier. I will wear my badge with pride.[something like Klem’s scientist]

THE CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY IS WRONG AND I CAN PROVE IT 100% YES THE PLANET IS WARMING BUT THIS IS PART OF ITS EVOLUTION.MAN HAS HOWEVER CREATED GLOBAL COOLING. I HAVE TRIED TO FORWARD MY THEORY TO BOTH NEWS CHANNELS AND POLITICIANS BUT TO NO AVAIL. I AM BRANDED BY MY PIERS AS A DENIER,STOP DENYING ME THE RIGHT OF EXPRESSION AND PERHAPS THEY MAY LEARN SOMETHING. BECAUSE I DO NOT AGREE TO AN ESTABLISHED THEORY,I THINK PEOPLE BRAND ME AS CRANKY. IF ANYONE WITH AN OPEN INQUIRING WISHES TO SEE MY THEORY,I WILL BE ONLY TOO HAPPY TO SHARE WITH YOU.IT EXPLAINS THE TRUE REASON FOR THE ICE AGE AND WHY OUR SPRING WEATHER WAS SO COLD AND ALL WEATHER PATTERNS IN BETWEEN.BOB.

“Moreover, the argument they then move to is to claim that governments and scientists around the world are colluding to fool the people in to believing there is a threat when there really isn’t one.”

A few people claim it is a conspiracy, but most climate deniers don’t make that claim.

I know a working scientist who is a vocal climate skeptic, yet he openly admits that in order to secure his annual research funding he always links his research proposals to climate change. He says it goes against his personal convictions, but he’s a pragmatist, he does what is necessary to continue his research. He does it because it pays his staff and puts food on the table. His research is academic and does not have much in the way of commercial application, so government funding is how he survives. I think he looks at climate change as the flavor of the month, and is the path to continued research. When the flavor changes, he’ll change with it.

Its not a conspiracy, its just life. And I don’t blame him one bit for doing it.

Hi Suellen, excellent post. I think part of the problem with data is that it can be debated, whereas common sense, and Ecology 101, teaches us that life is about balance. We live on a planet that is based on balance, from its ecosystems (including the climate) to our own bodies. It’s amazing to me that these deniers (or skeptics), can think that we can dramatically increase greenhouse gases through massive petroleum production, while at the same time cut down the majority of trees (which were needed to absorb those gases), and not throw the climate and the planet out of balance.

” It’s amazing to me that these deniers (or skeptics), can think that we can dramatically increase greenhouse gases through massive petroleum production, while at the same time cut down the majority of trees (which were needed to absorb those gases), and not throw the climate and the planet out of balance.”

And it’s amazing to me that alarmists think that we are so significant and the earth so fragile that humans can throw the climate and the planet out of balance.

Change is inevitable.
Those who accommodate change early and make change work for them, benefit the most.
Those who deny change become victims of change.
Took me nearly 70 years to learn that little lesson.

Your comment about the worlds poor is touching and reminds me of a wonderful quote.

“”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

And another one ““The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA

It must be wonderful to have thrown yourself in with this lot. Like you, they truly care about the world’s poor….sniff…

You could accept the data if its scientifically proven for example.
The ” they then move to claim governments etc are colluding ” I find specious. I am not a denier, skeptic or whatever. I just don’t see the case proven for climate change. I see evidence on both sides and the jury is out. When it comes back in perhaps its safest verdict is the Scottish one of “not proven”.

This debate falls into the western dichotomy trap, right v wrong, good v bad, black v white, compared to a grayer and arguably more generous continuum view. This is the view preferred by tHC.

“I am not a denier, skeptic or whatever. I just don’t see the case proven for climate change.”

Um, sorry pal, but if you don’t see the case proven for climate change, then you are now located smack-dab in the middle of the climate denier camp. It’s simple, you must accept all climate change claims no matter how bizarre, or you’re a denier.

climate change hoax ?
nicely argued, though avoids the point. whilst accepting there is scietific evidence for and against whether there is some change to extend this to a ‘hoax’ is to denigrate the argument. that the science may not be in one way or the other but to decry one side as a hoax, moves the matter to debate/rhetoric rather than to be decided on the facts. for me the facts are not yet in
tHC

I didn’t introduce the ‘hoax’ terminology into the debate–the Climate Deniers have used that term widely to characterize the Global Warming position. (try googling ‘climate change hoax’) And that is precisely the point–if the deniers’ data stacks up, why resort to such denigration? Moreover, the argument they then move to is to claim that governments and scientists around the world are colluding to fool the people in to believing there is a threat when there really isn’t one. Hence, the question Why? That is where their argument fails even my modest scrutiny. So why should we believe their data?
Thanks for the comment. :-)

Very Inspiring Blogger Award

Today’s Music Selection

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author / owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Suellen Carey-Clarke with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.